Universal apps

Hey,

I'm curious as to whether anyone else is actively replacing Win32 apps
with lighter, simpler Universal apps from the Windows Store on their
desktops. I couldn't help but notice that Foxit PDF reader has a
Universal version there and I've already moved my e-mail over to
Microsoft's simple e-mail / calendar solution. Hell, I even bought
Paint.net there and installed the Universal version of HexChat as
well. I love the idea of sandboxed applications and the knowledge that
I can compensate the developers of open-source applications in
exchange for the improved security and easier updating process.

I know that the Windows Store is still pretty bad in its application
offerings but I figure that if we all support them in this fashion,
the content might improve.

Doomsdrzej wrote:

I couldn't help but notice that Foxit PDF reader has a Universal
version [at the Microsoft Store] and I've already moved my e-mail
over to Microsoft's simple e-mail / calendar solution. Hell, I even
bought Paint.net there

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/stor...t/9nbhcs1lx4r0
$8.99 ($5.99 sale ends 1/3/18)

They're charging for an app-version of their program although the
program-version is free (donationware). Monetization: that's the
purpose of the Microsoft, Google, and other online stores. Microsoft
can't get a slice of the transaction unless money is involved. I'd just
go with the program-version for free instead of wasting money to get the
same software (or often lesser software since apps are usually not as
robust). No reason to prefer an app over a program on Windows 10.

Instead of trialing the program and me deciding if the program is worth
leaving on my computer and continue using it (and donate later) or
discard it for something better, now it's an app that you have to
pre-pay before you get to even use it. No thanks. Tis the reason I
don't buy from Google's Store for apps on my Android phone: I don't get
to test the app to know if it is something good or even minimally meets
my criteria. The difference is going to the produce section of a
grocery store to see what I'm buying versus buying canned goods with a
picture professing the contents inside: until you get home and later
open the can, you don't know what you got.

"The first advantage is a really big one, in my opinion. Paint.NET
already has a best-in-class update experience (´Install when I exit¡,
thankyouverymuch), but having updates be fully automatic and transparent
is much better."
(https://blog.getpaint.net/2017/09/29...windows-store/)

That's why I'm still back on Windows 7 for my home PC where *I* have
control over the state of *my* computer. My computer is not the
software author's property. Covert change of state is why users report
their setup stopped working as before. I will decide if and when there
will updates to anything. Automatic/background updating is for boobs
that often turn up here saying "It /suddenly/ stopped working". I don't
need miniscule changes to a program for features that I may not be
using. For Windows 10, yes, there are ways to disable its auto-updates.

"The [Classic] Paint.NET installer and updater are based on Windows
Installer (´MSI files¡)." Only if you don't know how to code the
installer script to use MSI, and there are plenty of other choices for
installers (no one is stuck using only MSI).

and installed the Universal version of HexChat as well.

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/stor...t/9nrrbgttm4j2
$7.49

Another waste of money to get a paid app over a free program, or a
pre-paid app instead of donationware where you get to decide AFTER using
the program if it is worth a donation.

I love the idea of sandboxed applications

Microsoft is late to that game. A "sandbox" that merely regulates
permissions is not a secure sandbox. GesWall was around years ago to do
the same type of permission regulation and even added more control than
afforded through policies or SRPs in Windows, especially regarding
interprocess communication. It died because it proved not a robust
sandbox. Although not perfect but better than sandboxing, if you want
to isolate an unknown or untested program then use a virtual machine.
VirtualBox and VMWare Player are free. If you don't want the overhead
and impact of a VM then use a free sandbox, like Shade Sandbox. Toolwiz
Time Free isn't a sandbox but instead more like a system snaphot: after
a reboot, the OS partition is back to the same state is was before. Tis
much like Returnil's System Safe Free (which they abandoned to go to
their QuietZone payware). Both use a kernel stack driver on file I/O to
redirect writes to a virtual disk. Upon a reboot, the prior virtual
disk got discarded and either a new one created (if you stayed in
protection mode) or you returned to writing to the real disk. You
didn't need Windows 10 and using apps to get the processes virtualized.

and the knowledge that I can compensate the developers of open-source
applications in exchange for the improved security and easier
updating process.

So why pre-pay for an untested app when you can trial a program
whereupon you can decide AFTERWARD if it is worth the money to donate?

I know that the Windows Store is still pretty bad in its application
offerings but I figure that if we all support them in this fashion,
the content might improve.

I'm not really interested in giving Microsoft a slice (30%) of every app
purchased at their online store. Yeah, Microsoft gets 30%. See:

https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/jen...s-google-play/

Just like eBay that gets a slice of every transaction (but a meager 3%),
Microsoft generates revenue from app sales from their store.
Microsoft's hefty transaction fee is what presses developers to charge
higher prices. Another example of Microsoft's superior greed: gift
cards from Microsoft add a 2.4% surcharge onto the 3% transaction fee,
plus the buyer pays sales tax on the gift card and then pay sales tax
again on anything purchased with the gift card. After deducting for the
transaction fee per sale on an app, how long before the developer gets
an ROI on their repetitive annual subscription ($49/year individual,
$99/year for a company) to participate at Microsoft's Store versus
participating at Google's store ($25 ONE-TIME fee)? $9 apps (even for a
short-term $6 sale) are considered overpriced at Google's store for
Android apps.

I get to test trial and donationware BEFORE paying. If I keep
donationware and later donate after successful testing, the author gets
ALL of my donation, not just some portion of it.

On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 14:54:29 -0600, VanguardLH wrote:

Doomsdrzej wrote:

I couldn't help but notice that Foxit PDF reader has a Universal
version [at the Microsoft Store] and I've already moved my e-mail
over to Microsoft's simple e-mail / calendar solution. Hell, I even
bought Paint.net there

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/stor...t/9nbhcs1lx4r0
$8.99 ($5.99 sale ends 1/3/18)

They're charging for an app-version of their program although the
program-version is free (donationware). Monetization: that's the
purpose of the Microsoft, Google, and other online stores. Microsoft
can't get a slice of the transaction unless money is involved. I'd just
go with the program-version for free instead of wasting money to get the
same software (or often lesser software since apps are usually not as
robust). No reason to prefer an app over a program on Windows 10.

I didn't mind paying because I've used Paint.NET in the past and
thought of donating but never bothered to. When I got it, it was on
special and figured that the $3 or $4 I spent was a reasonable
donation considering how little I used it. Obviously, getting
something for free is great but I prefer to help the developers get
some coffee if I can afford it.

Instead of trialing the program and me deciding if the program is worth
leaving on my computer and continue using it (and donate later) or
discard it for something better, now it's an app that you have to
pre-pay before you get to even use it. No thanks. Tis the reason I
don't buy from Google's Store for apps on my Android phone: I don't get
to test the app to know if it is something good or even minimally meets
my criteria. The difference is going to the produce section of a
grocery store to see what I'm buying versus buying canned goods with a
picture professing the contents inside: until you get home and later
open the can, you don't know what you got.

"The first advantage is a really big one, in my opinion. Paint.NET
already has a best-in-class update experience (“Install when I exit”,
thankyouverymuch), but having updates be fully automatic and transparent
is much better."
(https://blog.getpaint.net/2017/09/29...windows-store/)

That's why I'm still back on Windows 7 for my home PC where *I* have
control over the state of *my* computer. My computer is not the
software author's property. Covert change of state is why users report
their setup stopped working as before. I will decide if and when there
will updates to anything. Automatic/background updating is for boobs
that often turn up here saying "It /suddenly/ stopped working". I don't
need miniscule changes to a program for features that I may not be
using. For Windows 10, yes, there are ways to disable its auto-updates.

"The [Classic] Paint.NET installer and updater are based on Windows
Installer (“MSI files”)." Only if you don't know how to code the
installer script to use MSI, and there are plenty of other choices for
installers (no one is stuck using only MSI).

and installed the Universal version of HexChat as well.

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/stor...t/9nrrbgttm4j2
$7.49

Another waste of money to get a paid app over a free program, or a
pre-paid app instead of donationware where you get to decide AFTER using
the program if it is worth a donation.

In the case of HexChat, like Paint.NET, I've used the application
sufficiently to know that I like it and thought that a donation was
worth it. However, HexChat, despite the price, does not need to be
paid for to download as far as I recall. If anything, I think it was
written in the description that it was free to continue using even if
you select the trial.

I love the idea of sandboxed applications

Microsoft is late to that game. A "sandbox" that merely regulates
permissions is not a secure sandbox. GesWall was around years ago to do
the same type of permission regulation and even added more control than
afforded through policies or SRPs in Windows, especially regarding
interprocess communication. It died because it proved not a robust
sandbox. Although not perfect but better than sandboxing, if you want
to isolate an unknown or untested program then use a virtual machine.
VirtualBox and VMWare Player are free. If you don't want the overhead
and impact of a VM then use a free sandbox, like Shade Sandbox. Toolwiz
Time Free isn't a sandbox but instead more like a system snaphot: after
a reboot, the OS partition is back to the same state is was before. Tis
much like Returnil's System Safe Free (which they abandoned to go to
their QuietZone payware). Both use a kernel stack driver on file I/O to
redirect writes to a virtual disk. Upon a reboot, the prior virtual
disk got discarded and either a new one created (if you stayed in
protection mode) or you returned to writing to the real disk. You
didn't need Windows 10 and using apps to get the processes virtualized.

I had no idea and it's good to know. Still, what Microsoft offers in
its sandboxing is better than nothing and I'll take it even if it only
really offers a "feeling" of security rather than the real thing.

and the knowledge that I can compensate the developers of open-source
applications in exchange for the improved security and easier
updating process.

So why pre-pay for an untested app when you can trial a program
whereupon you can decide AFTERWARD if it is worth the money to donate?

Nobody is stopping an interested party from downloading the app
directly from the author's site and trying it out in its Win32 form.

I know that the Windows Store is still pretty bad in its application
offerings but I figure that if we all support them in this fashion,
the content might improve.

I'm not really interested in giving Microsoft a slice (30%) of every app
purchased at their online store. Yeah, Microsoft gets 30%. See:

https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/jen...s-google-play/

Just like eBay that gets a slice of every transaction (but a meager 3%),
Microsoft generates revenue from app sales from their store.
Microsoft's hefty transaction fee is what presses developers to charge
higher prices. Another example of Microsoft's superior greed: gift
cards from Microsoft add a 2.4% surcharge onto the 3% transaction fee,
plus the buyer pays sales tax on the gift card and then pay sales tax
again on anything purchased with the gift card. After deducting for the
transaction fee per sale on an app, how long before the developer gets
an ROI on their repetitive annual subscription ($49/year individual,
$99/year for a company) to participate at Microsoft's Store versus
participating at Google's store ($25 ONE-TIME fee)? $9 apps (even for a
short-term $6 sale) are considered overpriced at Google's store for
Android apps.

I get to test trial and donationware BEFORE paying. If I keep
donationware and later donate after successful testing, the author gets
ALL of my donation, not just some portion of it.

You're right but a little is better than nothing at all.

"Wolf K" wrote

| "Universal apps"? In my lexicon, that would be an app that will run on
| any platform. Just download it and go.
|

That's what they are, in Microsoft's world.
Universal apps run on all versions of Windows
10, including, but not limited to, the non-existent
Win10 phone.

They were really meant to be phone apps that
could sync with desktops. But now there's no
phone. There's no Windows tablet to speak of.
And sandboxed trinket apps on a desktop miss the
point. The advantage of a desktop is that one
can install and use full-powered software on an
ergonomically optimized device. Apps are limited-
functionality software for limited-functionality
devices. And as VanguardLH noted, WinStore
apps require cooperating with MS, distributing
through their store, and giving them a 30% cut.
Hardly a good way to try to support software
developers when one could just as easily donate
directly to the Paint.Net people, or any other
software author, and eliminate the Microsoft
shakedown.

On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 11:03:40 -0500, Doomsdrzej wrote:

Hell, I even bought Paint.net there and installed the Universal
version of HexChat as well. I love [...] the knowledge that I can
compensate the developers of open-source applications [...]


How much of your payment goes to the developers and how much goes
to Microsoft?


--
Kind regards
Ralph

Ralph Fox wrote:
On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 11:03:40 -0500, Doomsdrzej wrote:

Hell, I even bought Paint.net there and installed the Universal
version of HexChat as well. I love [...] the knowledge that I can
compensate the developers of open-source applications [...]


How much of your payment goes to the developers and how much goes
to Microsoft?



MS gets 30% cut, developer gets 70% cut.

According to an article a few years ago, the majority
of store developers, are starving to death. They don't
get enough from Store sales to buy Kraft dinner. The
"high volume" developers, who move quite a few units,
can probably continue to work on Store versions. But
the little guys (and many of the scum bags), it's
a losing proposition.

Paul

"Paul" wrote

| According to an article a few years ago, the majority
| of store developers, are starving to death. They don't
| get enough from Store sales to buy Kraft dinner. The
| "high volume" developers, who move quite a few units,
| can probably continue to work on Store versions. But
| the little guys (and many of the scum bags), it's
| a losing proposition.
|

That's always been true of shareware in general. Even
Mac developers, catering to an audience that clamors to
pay full retail, have trouble. There are typically a handful
that hit it big. The rest are a labor of love. And that's
with productivity software. Apps, whether for phone or
Win10, are small trinket programs. Even fewer of those
have any rational profit model. The rare hits are things
like Angry Birds.

The top 10 phone apps are generally commercial apps
for websites

https://www.topwindata.com/windowsapps.html

Skype, youtube, facebook, weather, instagram...

Similarly, ratings for "best" apps tend to list trinkets
like games, restaurant reccomendations, etc

https://betanews.com/2017/11/17/best...-this-week-50/

Phone apps is what we're talking about here.
Microsoft didn't just streamline software. They're
trying to eliminate software and sell people on
sandboxed trinket apps and services. They're
aiming to eventually have something like interactive
cable TV, where you order entertainment, games,
whatever, through the WinStore. It so happens
that their phone is kaput. But that's not stopping
them.

Apps are services for limited service devices.
They're not generally productivity software.
Some provide software functionality or even
add to the functionality of the device. (Like
iPhone flashlight apps.) But they're not really
meant to be highly functional. A graphic artist
will pay for Photoshop. A lawyer will pay for
MS Office. There's not much market for
trinket games and even less for something like
a Facebook app.

That's why the big, up-and-
coming privacy/security fiasco is with apps.
Most small apps depend on selling datamined
info or showing ads. Some of those have turned
out to be malware, even on iPhones.
The big commercial apps, like Facebook, are
done as an investment. They want people to use
it for free.

There's an interesting trinket app example
he

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/stor...o/9p22nzc2qp45

PDF Assistant Pro. $3. It was one of the few
useful things I found in a quick search. It
sounds impressive for $3. But read the comments.
Can't print the PDF. Document changes are limited.
No ability to add pages. Reading down it increasingly
sounds like this is an app to read PDFs and maybe
add a note, for use on your own device. Pro? It's a
Pro version of an app to help you read a PDF.

On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 22:40:23 -0500, "Mayayana"
wrote:

"Wolf K" wrote

| "Universal apps"? In my lexicon, that would be an app that will run on
| any platform. Just download it and go.
|

That's what they are, in Microsoft's world.
Universal apps run on all versions of Windows
10, including, but not limited to, the non-existent
Win10 phone.

It's a shame that it failed, to be honest. I still found Cortana to be
better than what both Apple and Google are offering and the system was
responsive in addition to very customizable and pretty.

They were really meant to be phone apps that
could sync with desktops. But now there's no
phone. There's no Windows tablet to speak of.
And sandboxed trinket apps on a desktop miss the
point. The advantage of a desktop is that one
can install and use full-powered software on an
ergonomically optimized device. Apps are limited-
functionality software for limited-functionality
devices. And as VanguardLH noted, WinStore
apps require cooperating with MS, distributing
through their store, and giving them a 30% cut.
Hardly a good way to try to support software
developers when one could just as easily donate
directly to the Paint.Net people, or any other
software author, and eliminate the Microsoft
shakedown.

Good points.